One of the major problems I have with hard-line prescriptivists is that they follow their convictions to the point of absurdity, arguing that something completely standard ought to be changed because it doesn’t conform to a rule they’ve decided is inviolable. Today’s example is aren’t I.

Yes, I has a problem. Well, it’s not so much a problem with I, but with its companion am. Unlike the other conjugated forms of to be, am doesn’t form a contraction with not. Are and is are flexible, contracting equally readily with a pronoun (we’re) or the negation (isn’t). But am apparently fancies itself too good to consort with a debased negation. And so we find a hole in the English language, a word that should exist but doesn’t: amn’t.

Unlike am, English as a whole is flexible, and so another word (aren’t) pulls overtime and fills the hole. And this earns the ire of the accountants of the English language, who fume and fuss that this isn’t in the job description of aren’t. Didn’t they negotiate an agreement between subjects and verbs that aren’t can work with you and we and they and other plural subjects, but not with I?

So there is a hole in English, and there is a word that fills it. But filling the hole requires breaking a common rule in English. What do you do? If you are like pretty much every speaker of English, you break that rule. But there are those who put rules above reasonability and consider aren’t Ibad grammar. Let’s look into the matter.

History.Aren’t is first attested in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1794. Google Books offers examples from 1726 and 1740. All of these are instances with you or they as the subject. As for aren’t I:

(1a) Aren’t I rich? You know I am! Aren’t I handsome? Look at me. [1878]
(1b) “I’ve got threepence,” she said, “Aren’t I lucky?” [1876]
(1c) “Aren’t I?” seems to be thought the correct thing; but why should we say “Aren’t I” any more than “I are not”? [1872]

Aren’t I appears in Google Books by the 1870s, and writing is conservative with respect to spoken usage, so aren’t I likely appeared in speech much earlier. In the earliest attestation — (1c) from 1872 — aren’t I was already perceived as standard. No one still alive today spoke pre-aren’t-I English. So if it’s been standard for 130 years, why wouldn’t it be fine still? Here are some possible (but misguided) objections to it.

Logic? The primary objection to aren’t I is that it has subject-verb disagreement. You wouldn’t say I aren’t, so you can’t say aren’t I. The first part of that is correct, but the second doesn’t follow. After all, if I aren’t being incorrect blocks aren’t I, why doesn’t are not you being incorrect block aren’t you?

You can’t apply simple logic to language and expect there to be no exceptions. Emily Morgan has noted before that the logic of language is far more complex than prescriptivists make it out to be.

Informality?One site claims that aren’t I is unacceptable in formal writing. But that’s the case for all contractions, not just aren’t I, because they’re informal transcriptions of speech. The fact that aren’t I doesn’t appear in formal writing is no more a condemnation of it than the fact that aren’t you doesn’t appear in formal writing. (And, by the way, both do appear in formal writing.)

Alternatives. Now, let’s say you’re unconvinced that we should leave well enough alone, and you really want to fix aren’t I. How are you going to do it? Look at the prominent alternatives that are available for aren’t I: am I not, amn’t I, ain’t I. Am I not is fine if you’re being poetic or intensely formal or need to stress the negation, but in most cases, it’s going to sound completely unnatural and overly stuffy. Amn’t I is perfectly fine if you are Irish or Scottish, where it persists as a standard form, but it’s exceedingly rare outside of those Englishes, and you’ll look affected if you use it in another dialect. Furthermore, it’s hard to pronounce the neighboring m and n distinctly, so people may think you’re using ain’t I instead. Ain’t I, of course, used to be a standard form, and Fowler himself fought in its favor, but nowadays is one of the most condemned words in the English language, one that will make even most moderate prescriptivists write you off as ill-bred.

The fact of the matter is that there is no other option that is acceptable in most English dialects and at an appropriate formality level. This is why aren’t I has taken hold.

Suppletion & Syncretism. I want to conclude with two final reasons why aren’t I shouldn’t concern you: suppletion & syncretism. Suppletion is a specific type of irregularity, where one irregular form fills in (or overtakes) the regular form. Usually, suppletion is talking about a case where the irregular form is from an unrelated paradigm: e.g., better instead of gooder in English, or mejor instead of más bueno in Spanish. No one complains that better is wrong because gooder follows the rules better. With aren’t I, the suppletive form is only from a different part of the paradigm, not a whole different paradigm, but the basic idea is the same. There is a seemingly regular rule (add n’t to the conjugated verb) that in one instance is ignored in favor of an irregular form. If you want aren’t I done away with, you ought to want to see better consigned to the scrap heap as well.

Furthermore, it’s only suppletion from a contemporary perspective. Actually, we’re dealing with syncretism, where two distinct syntactic forms happen to look identical. David Crystal has a very nice explanation of the history behind aren’t I, which came from people mistaking an’t for aren’t in non-rhotic (“silent-r“) dialects. Genealogically, the aren’t in aren’t I and the aren’t in aren’t you aren’t the same. Which means that, technically speaking, aren’t I isn’t an example of subject-verb disagreement; it’s a case of mistaken identity of one aren’t for another.

Summary: No, aren’t I isn’t incorrect. It’s been in use for at least 130 years, the alternatives are all insufficient, and the “logical” arguments against it are fallacious. It’s no more incorrect than using better instead of gooder.

About The Blog

A lot of people make claims about what "good English" is. Much of what they say is flim-flam, and this blog aims to set the record straight. Its goal is to explain the motivations behind the real grammar of English and to debunk ill-founded claims about what is grammatical and what isn't. Somehow, this was enough to garner a favorable mention in the Wall Street Journal.

About Me

I'm Gabe Doyle, currently a postdoctoral scholar in the Language and Cognition Lab at Stanford University. Before that, I got a doctorate in linguistics from UC San Diego and a bachelor's in math from Princeton.

In my research, I look at how humans manage one of their greatest learning achievements: the acquisition of language. I build computational models of how people can learn language with cognitively-general processes and as few presuppositions as possible. Currently, I'm working on models for acquiring phonology and other constraint-based aspects of cognition.

I also examine how we can use large electronic resources, such as Twitter, to learn about how we speak to each other. Some of my recent work uses Twitter to map dialect regions in the United States.

Or (wait) maybe you meant that the word order should be “are you not”? But in all questions the main verb is omitted and the aux fronted, and in contractions the not is attached to the aux… it’s “aren’t you the governor?” as easily as “are you not the governor?” – although the latter sounds more formal and/or emphatic than the former.

The Ridger: For me, subject-auxiliary inversion in a question only inverts the auxiliary, not the auxiliary & negation. So I find “Are not you going to the store?” to be ungrammatical. Do you find it acceptable?

Being Irish, I’m one of the lucky ones who gets to use amn’t in my speech. I hear it quite often, too. There’s a few literary examples here, FWIW. Very interesting post, though. It never occurred to me that aren’t I was a problem for some people.

Although I’m not the sort to gripe about a usage such as “aren’t I”, I’m much more likely to say “ain’t I”. “Aren’t I” just sounds wrong too me: too stuffy and formal, and if you want to be stuffy and formal you should be saying “am I not” in the first place. “Ain’t I” sounds perfectly reasonable in contexts where the level of formality is the same as those where one would say “aren’t you” or “isn’t he”.

And if people want to get on my case for using the two words “ain’t I”, then I have two other words for them as well. :-)

Thanks for the referral. Yes, I am the prescriptivist you linked to who “put rules above reasonability.” You’ve written an excellent article with some compelling arguments for the correctness of “aren’t I.” However, it still makes me squirm when I hear it used.

My first visit to the website makes this question form in my mind: If prescriptivism must die, why not do away with the different forms of there (their and they’re)? Almost no one uses them properly these days, as with your and you’re. If we decide to use our language as it is spoken and written by the vast majority of the population, this website becomes superfluous, does it not?
Thus I find myself in agreement with Jagatha…why not “amn’t I”? ;)

Great site!
Is there any truth do you suppose, to the theory that so-called upper-class modern England accents evolved from the residual Norman-French speech of the latter in their attempts to speak Anglo-Saxon – transition from the back of throat to tip of tongue -try doing so; it produces a sort of accent not very unlike ones heard coming from some English mouths.
Kind regards,
Caomhghín

When I was little, I used amn’t, although it sounds like, from this article and subsequent posts that the irish/scottish pronunciation might be as a single syllable combining the m and n into a single sound. Is that right? So, that pronunciation actually led the formation of the word ain’t?? I think that’s pretty interesting. I knew that ain’t was originally used as the am not contraction, but didn’t realize it stemmed directly from amn’t. When I was little I said amn’t, but I pronounced it like ‘amunt’ (for lack of access to a keyboard phonetic alphabet).

Incidentally, I’m a HUGE fan of the word ain’t (in part because of it’s perceived incorrectness and classlessness). I find it to be a very effective word because it communicates a strength of emotion and a ‘common experience’ feeling that it’s alternatives don’t. I do, however, tend to use it as it’s used in modern vernacular: able to replace ‘am not’, ‘are not’ or ‘is not’.

It’s funny, ‘aren’t I’ doesn’t really sound quite right to me, but at the same time, I’m not really sure if I use it or not. It seems like I might use that in certain constructions, but not others. Hmmm…

Even reading the comments regarding “are not you”, I still don’t see why it’s considered “incorrect”. In any case, it’s a poor example to support the anti-logic argument even if the comparison were parallel (which it isn’t). It may be very awkward in many constructions, but not all. Certainly the equivalent of “They aren’t you.” is generally seen as “They are not you.” and not “They are you not.”, yes?

Oh, my not-very-well-stated point is that inversion based on avoiding awkwardness can introduce ambiguity, which is harmful for communication. “Aren’t you going?” could mean two different things. “Are not you going?” doesn’t sound so bad if you are emphasizing the negation of “you”, whereas “Are you not going?” implies the negation of “going”, assuming there’s a lack of vocal stress on “you”.

But the raison d’etre for “aren’t I” was clearly the proscription of the correct “ain’t I.” That is, the lazy use of “ain’t” in second and third person and plural led to its general prohibition, which over correcting resulted in the absurd “aren’t I,” accepted by inept grammar teachers in lieu of the forbidden “ain’t I.” So just between you and I [Oh my poor ears!], the prescribers (like J T Baker) often do more harm than good.

I mourn the “am I not?” condemnation. It doesn´t sound stuffy, it sounds careful, as one should be when taking a language exam. As a student of ESL, I came across a multiple choice question that asked to fill the blanks in “I´m always on time, ____ I?” I just couldn´t put aren´t but there wasn´t any other option really acceptable. Wouldn’t the same suppletive reasons make “don´t I” correct even though it doesnt agree with the verb to be? If “aren´t I” is a go, then certainly “ain’t I”, and lets not forget “don´t I”, should be acceptable. Since folks speak it, any prejudice against those forms would be as stuffy as “am I not?” might be. I am held in awe regarding your native feel for the language, but how could the only thing really correct besides the awkward “amn´t” deserve to be considered stuffy?

You should say “Am I not?”. For a person who speaks correctly, “aren’t I?” is nails on a chalkboard. If you think “aren’t I” is ok, I’ll bet you say “nucular”, too. Idiot.
And to The Ridger. “are not you” is ok, “are you not” is better. But it depends on the context.

Jane Austen does indeed use “am not I” in ALL of her books. Languages evolve also by incorporating and thus “justifying” mistakes. But they still are mistakes. No doubt “aren’t I” will eventually become normal usage, but until it makes most (educated) people cringe, well, it’s a mistake. The time will come when even “their” in place of “they’re” will be normal, the latter having fallen into oblivion. Until then, it is a bloody mistake.

In “Cambridge Prepare for the TOEFL Test” (4th ed), listening test, the “professor” says, “Aren’t I?”. Given that TOEFL is generally very conservative, its use (or at least, Cambridge’s use) of “aren’t I” is a sure sign of its acceptance as standard English.

@Mitzi You’re acting as if it’s only correct to use “aren’t I” when speaking, but not when writing. I disagree, and “aren’t I” is used in both oral and written English. However much you wish to deny it, “aren’t I” IS normal English, and unless you can show hard evidence to the contrary, it is also now standard English.

[…] If I do make all our meals from scratch, and we homeschool, and we have a bundle of kids, why aren’t I writing more articles on organization or couponing? (this is not going to happen) I have been […]

[…] I do make all our meals from scratch, and we homeschool, and we have a bundle of kids, why aren’t I writing more articles on organization or couponing? (this is not going to happen) I have been […]